Validity, Significance, Strengths, Limitations, and Evidentiary Value of Real-World Clinical Data for Combination Therapy in Alzheimer’s Disease: Comparison of Efficacy and Effectiveness StudiesAtri A.a–c · Rountree S.D.d · Lopez O.L.e · Doody R.S.d
aDepartment of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Mass., bGeriatric Research, Education and Clinical Center, ENRM VA Medical Center, Bedford, Mass., cHarvard Medical School, Boston, Mass., dAlzheimer’s Disease and Memory Disorders Center, Department of Neurology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Tex., and eDepartment of Neurology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pa., USA
Alireza Atri, MD, PhD
MGH Memory Disorders Unit
15 Parkman St.
WACC 715, Boston, MA 02114 (USA)
Tel. +1 617 726 1728, E-Mail firstname.lastname@example.org
Do you have an account?
Background: Randomized controlled efficacy trials (RCTs), the scientific gold standard, are required for regulatory approval of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) interventions, yet provide limited information regarding real-world therapeutic effectiveness. Objective: To compare the nature of evidence regarding the combination of approved AD treatments from RCTs versus long-term observational controlled studies (LTOCs). Methods: Comparisons of strengths, limitations, and evidence level for monotherapy [cholinesterase inhibitor (ChEI) or memantine] and combination therapy (ChEI + memantine) in RCTs versus LTOCs. Results: RCTs examined highly selected populations over months. LTOCs collected data across multiple AD stages in large populations over many years. RCTs and LTOCs show similar patterns favoring combination over monotherapy over placebo/no treatment. Long-term combination therapy compared to monotherapy reduced cognitive and functional decline and delayed time to nursing home admission. Persistent treatment was associated with slower decline. While LTOCs used control groups, adjusted for multiple covariates, had higher external validity, and favorable ethical, practical and cost considerations, their limitations included potential selection bias due to lack of placebo comparisons and randomization. Conclusions: Naturalistic LTOCs provide complementary long-term level II evidence to complement level I evidence from short-term RCTs regarding therapeutic effectiveness in AD that may otherwise be unobtainable. A coordinated strategy/consortium to pool LTOC data from multiple centers to estimate long-term comparative effectiveness, risks/benefits, and costs of AD treatments is needed.
© 2012 S. Karger AG, Basel
Article / Publication Details
Copyright / Drug Dosage / DisclaimerCopyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher or, in the case of photocopying, direct payment of a specified fee to the Copyright Clearance Center.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.